The united states should suspend all assistance to pakistan
Debate Rounds (3)
we need to suspend all assistance to Pakistan.
I've debated the con side of this about 6 times . this is my first Time doing pro but I have a case prepared.....so this should be interesting.
I negate (The United States should not suspend all assistance to Pakistan). For the purposes of this debate, I offer the following definitions and guidelines:
1. I define "assistance" as any aid that goes to Pakistan's country, government, and citizens, "suspend" as temporarily halt in the near future, and "all" as without exception.
2. The purpose of assistance is both development and furthering of U.S. interests.
3. Because this resolution is for suspending ALL aid to Pakistan, the Con side wins if I can prove there are one or more areas that assistance should be maintained or abolished.
Suspending aid would cripple the United States' ability to pursue terrorist groups within Pakistan's borders. According to the Brookings Institution, Pakistan houses "more terrorist groups than any other country." Only through cooperation has the United States been able to capture or kill more Al-Qaeda leaders in Pakistan than in any other country. In light of Osama Bin Laden's death, the pursuit of terrorist groups has grown more aggressive; the U.S. must remain in Pakistan to guarantee its completion. According to the Council for Foreign Relations, "another abrupt cut in U.S. aid [to Pakistan] will only endanger security cooperation that has been effective, if insufficient, in making America safer." Suspending aid could result in the expulsion of U.S. intelligence officers and a lack of involvement in the area, counterproductive to U.S. aims. In fact, as recently as March 20th, the White House press secretary said, "The United States has critical national security priorities that we continue to pursue, including counter-terrorism efforts aimed at Al Qaeda, strengthening Afghan security and supporting Afghan-led reconciliation, all areas where we believe we have common goals in Pakistan." In fact, if the U.S. suspends aid, Pakistan has stated that they will remove 175,000 troops on the Afghan border fighting terrorist groups and other militants. The negative impacts of suspension are tremendous, as the U.S.'s ability to pursue counter-terrorism is essential to both domestic and international safety.
Subpoint A: Suspending assistance to Pakistan would hurt Pakistani citizens and United States foreign interests. Education assistance is vital for Pakistani growth and countering extremism. The Heritage Foundation found that, "A strong and effective education system in Pakistan will help ensure that the country steers toward a path of stability, moderation, and prosperity in the years to come," and concluded "U.S. efforts to encourage education reform and development in Pakistan should be consistent, sustained, and multi-pronged." In 2005, U.S. assistance to primary education and literacy stood at $66 million, almost double the amount of spending the previous year. This increase, according to a 9/11 Commission report, occurred because of the importance of "educational opportunity...to uprooting terrorist ideology and increased congressional oversight to U.S. aid programs to Pakistan." As of 2005, the United States Agency for International Development had trained over 16,000 teachers and benefited 367,000 children. According to the American Institute for Research, assistance will benefit 1,000,000 students in the next five years. The negative effects of suspending assistance are twofold: it would incite instability and violence at the cost of educating Pakistani children, while hindering U.S. anti-terrorist and developmental goals in the region.
Subpoint B: Recent natural disasters have created a current need for direct assistance within Pakistan. Reuters remarked on February 28th, 2012, that "over five million people in Pakistan still need basic aid such as shelter, clean water, and healthcare six months after floods inundated thousands of villages in the south" after monsoons last August interrupted the lives of 9 million Pakistanis. In the aftermath, there was significant loss in agricultural potential--as 92% of the area's cotton and 81% of the area's sugar cane was destroyed. Furthermore, floods from July of 2010 "disrupted the lives of 18 million people" as well as major industries within the country. Within the same month of the initial flood, U.S. aircraft rescued "3,500 people and transported more than 412,000 pounds of emergency supplies." Prime Minister Yousuf Gilani exclaimed that, "if anyone has practically given us maximum help, it is America." Currently, the U.S. government has given more than $700 million worth of assistance to individuals affected by the floods of 2010 and 2011. However, Pakistan's High Commissioner has said, "It will take at least five years...and more than $10 to $15 billion" to rebuild the country's roads, food supplies, and damaged markets. Suspending relief aid would leave the Pakistani people affected temporarily homeless and without transportation routes, and would stifle textile and food exports from within Pakistan. U.S. assistance is necessary in creating lasting stability and reopening global markets, one of our main goals.
Contention 3: Suspending aid to Pakistan would cripple United States diplomacy and geopolitical influence.
Subpoint A:If we were to suspend all assistance to Pakistan, the United States would be treating Pakistani nationals differently than we treat nationals of any other country around the world, including individuals from North Korea and Cuba," an inherently unfair system. According to the Pakistani passport, the president of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan directly requests that Pakistani citizens be given "such assistance and protection as may be necessary�." Suspending all assistance to Pakistan would also stop this aid. The negative impacts of this are twofold: this strains diplomatic relations between the United States and the Pakistani nation, which is strategically located near Afghanistan and Iran. Additionally, Pakistani citizens within the United States and the Pakistani embassy would become alienated, subject to extreme prejudice.
Subpoint B: If we were to suspend aid, the United States would lose geopolitical influence in a region key to our interests. Currently, the United States is a major contributor of Pakistani aid. Consequently, if we were to suspend aid to Pakistan, China will move in, and gain political influence in Pakistan. In fact, according to the Wall Street Journal, "Pakistan was lobbying Afghanistan's president against building a long-term strategic partnership with the United States, urging him instead to look to Pakistan and China for help." Considering the fact that China has been a longstanding ally of Pakistan, and is planning to build two nuclear reactors in Pakistan, the United States cannot afford to lose our influence in Pakistan. The impacts of suspending aid are obvious: if we were to suspend aid, the U.S. will lose influence in Pakistan while China, our top competitor, will move in. But these are not the only impacts of suspending aid. In the past, the United States has acted as a mediator between the Pakistan-Indian conflict. However, if we were to suspend aid, because of our loss of geopolitical influence in the region, we will no longer be able to serve as a mediator between Pakistan and India, which will lead to increased conflict between India and Pakistan, decreasing the stability of the region.
For these reasons, I urge a negative ballot. Thank you!
Rresolved: The united states should suspend all assistance to Pakistan.
in response to my opponent his terms of winning cannot stand. For the con to win he needs to prove.
In order for my side to win, I need to prove that this is the best way to adjusting pakistans behavior and that we cant just sit by and watch while pakistan is supporting terrorism. That there is millions of dollars of missing money. Also that The U.S should fix its own debt problems before we fix pakistans.
For my opponent to win, he needs to prove why we need to keep giving assistance while it is obvious that pakistan is supporting the very terrorists we strategize to kill. he also needs to prove That there is no missing money( in my case) and that pakistan is handling The money we give them well.
We are currently giving pakistan over 20 billion dollars in assistance since 2002 to further U.S ambitions........http://www.reuters.com...
That being to encourage the pakistanis to partner with us and eliminate terrorism, and to also provide economic support. we provide pakistan this assistance and expect to accomplish a goal by doing so. That being results. So in reality we are really investing in pakistan. So In this debate I will systematically express why investing via assistance to pakistan is a failure. therefore we affirm the u.s should suspend all assistance to pakistan. First pakistan hinders counter terrorism efforts by supporting terrorists. Pakistans tolerance of harboring terrorist groups is unacceptable. The pakistani government has been misleading the U.S for too long about it’s veiw on terrorist groups. the ISI has worked for years against American interests. Especially in the subject of defeating terrorist networks within their own countries. According to Americas 16 spy agencies, “ with a high degree of certainty it has been concluded, pakistani support for terrorist groups have increased over the past seven years.” Osama Bin Laden leader of the Al-Queda terrorist group had been living in pakistan in its FATA region for years before his capture in may 2011. His compound was a few miles away from a military academy and very close to the nations capitol...........http://www.suntimes.com...
The npr states that pakistan has been has been sharing a symbiotic relationship with the Lakshir-e-taiba terrorist group........http://www.npr.org...
According to the NYtimes-" Elements within the pakistan government, including the country's spy agency, are proving support to groups like the Taliban and haqqani network, according to credible news reports"..........http://www.nytimes.com...
According to the pentagon-"the haqqani network is a pentagon based group affiliated with both the Taliban and al-queda. It has emerged as one of the biggest threats to stability in Afghanistan"...........https://bangordailynews.com...
SO who funds the terror?......"funding for Al-Queda is more diverse and included money from new recruits,donations from sympathisers, and a cut of profits from money dealers in Yemen and pakistan."........http://www.nation.com.pk...
America has given 20 billion dollars in assistance to pakistan to fight terrorism. One of the two conclusions can be made from this sponsored failure. Either pakistan hasn’t been Trying or they support terrorism. prior to this the CIA provided the ISI in a co-operative trust building gesture , surveillance video and other information on the guerrilla locations where terrorists were indeed confirmed. When the 3 different places were raided at different times they all were empty. the ISI is believed to have tipped them off because the ISI were the only ones who knew about it. The only reason we captured Bin Laden was because we didn’t tell the ISI about it.......http://www.nation.com.pk... . Also a bombing attempt in New York Times Square has been linked to pakistan according to the Council Of Foreign Relations. They also state, “ leadership elements of Al-Queda and the Taliban, along with other terrorist groups have made pakistans FATA region there home and now work with a variety of The pakistani military. Pakistan is also suspected of tipping of terrorist groups against future investigations against them.........http://www.cfr.org... All of this evidence proves pakistan hinders counter terrorism efforts by supporting terrorists. The reasons for hindering these attempts are clear. Pakistan does not see the terrorist groups in its own country as a threat. By discontinuing assistance America will stand up to terrorism and prove that supporting terrorists is not acceptable or to be taken lightly. Contention 2: Missing money proves this investment is a failure. via U.S assistance 2% of funds is economic assistance, but has no results to show it. there is significant improvement economically since injecting 6 million dollars of our capitol. Also 15 million dollars was given to pakistan to build bunkers that don’t exist. 30 million for roads that were never started nor finished. 55 million for helicopter maintenance for there entire fleet. the planes haven't been touched. president musharoff of pakistan wanted more even after this and 6 months of funding foe highly expensive cobra parts, witch are nowhere to be found. ....http://www.abc.net.au...
This affirms our money is missing. out of all military intended funding only 300 million actually reached the military. Now calculate all of this and that’s 106 million dollars missing. America isn't rich. taxpayers cant afford to loose money witch could have gone to more secure things. Contention 3 America is in trillions of dollars of debt Where is this money to help pakistan coming from? ..... The debt as of Jan 1st, 2012 is 15,170,600,000,000. United States now owes more money than its yearly production (GDP)......If you spent $1 million a day since Jesus was born, you would have not spent $1 trillion by now. Thats a shocking visualization of the debt were in.....please look at this source........http://usdebt.kleptocracy.us...
My point is were in trillion of dollars of debt why should America be wasting money in pakistan f pakistan is supporting the very terrorists were trying to defeat? Why should we provide money just for it to end up missing?( can somebody scream corruption!!!!)
Contention 4 suspending assistance will act like shock therapy. America is Pakistans largest investor. So they are largely dependent on the U.S. We provide assistance to their military, relieve them of their debt, provide disaster relief, and etc….. If pakistan didn’t depend so heavily on America then this tactic wouldn’t work. however since they do, suspending assistance will be like shock therapy and will give America time to reorganize its aid program. They wont realise what they had until its gone. we also need to reorganise our funding and brainstorm reform so that records, accountability, and distribution can be reassessed so we wont be wasting money and so that our aid program will be more effective.
In conclusion I have proven that continuing assistance to pakistan hinders counter terrorism efforts via support of terrorists, Missing money proves this is a failed investment, and suspending assistance will act as shock therapy and will give America time to reorganize its aid program I see absolutely no reason to vote negative so I affirm a solid affirmative vote.
In his first subpoint about terrorism, my opponent states that Pakistan has been harboring terrorists within its borders. First of all, Osama bin Laden is one person. You cannot make the hasty generalization that Pakistan harbors terrorists based on one person. Also, we don't actually know whether or not Pakistan was aware of Osama bin Laden's whereabouts. Second, my opponent's own source, the Chicago Sun Times, states that, "Officially, the Obama administration pushed back on talk of punishing Pakistan. White House spokesman Jay Carney told reporters Tuesday that the U.S. is committed to cooperating with Pakistan despite questions about who in the Islamabad government may have known that bin Laden was in hiding in his compound in Abbottabad." What we can see here is that we don't actually know if Pakistan knew about Osama bin Laden, and the U.S. is still committed to helping Pakistan
In his second subpoint on terrorism, my opponent states that "pakistan has been has been sharing a symbiotic relationship with the Lakshir-e-taiba terrorist group." However, he is citing his own source incorrectly. NPR states that a trial COULD reveal a connection between Pakistan and the terrorist group. His source doesn't actually prove his point, and that point falls.
My opponents then goes on to state that "Elements within the pakistan government, including the country's spy agency, are proving support to groups like the Taliban and haqqani network, according to credible news reports." There are several problems with this statement. First, the source is a "credible new report." People define "credible" differently, and unless my opponent can provide a concrete source, then my opponent's point falls. Second, the source my opponent has provided ACTUALLY DOESN'T SAY THIS. In fact, my opponent's source helps the Con side, because it states that we don't actually know if Pakistan knew about Osama Bin Laden, validating my point in the previous paragraph.
In his next subpoint, my opponent states that the Haqqani network is a Pakistan-based terrorist group. This may be true, however, my opponent has not linked Haqqani actions with the Pakistani government and with U.S. aid. How do we know suspending U.S. will fix this? Also, my opponent is making a fallacious argument. Just because the Haqqani network is Pakistan-based doesn't mean they are linked to the Pakistani government and U.S. aid. To make an analogy, just because the U.S. Communist Group, U.S. Nazi group, and U.S. Anti-Freedom group (they are fake names) are based in America does not mean that they are actively supported by the U.S. government.
In his final subpoint on terrorism, he states "So who funds the terror?" First of all, they do not link this to the Pakistani government and American assistance in anyway. Also, my opponent's source is talking about opium in Afghanistan, and is not related to this debate at all.
In response to my opponent's terrorism contention as a whole, Pakistan is actually necessary for the U.S. to achieve their counter-terrorism goals. My opponent also does not show how aid would fix any of the problems he brings up. In fact, according to The New York Times, roughly 4000 troops have died in these border wars--more than the number of all allied soldiers killed in Afghanistan fighting terrorism. And according to the Central Asia-Caucasus Institute, Pakistan's efforts against terror are critical. Over 85,000 troops are currently deployed on the Afghan-Pakistan border, and more than 1,200 of them have sacrificed their lives fighting terrorists, as compared to the 500 U.S. casualties in Operation Enduring Freedom. So what we can see here is that Pakistan is actually actively fighting terrorists. While my opponent may cite AMERICAN WORDS, I am citing PAKISTANI ACTIONS, which clearly show their commitment to the fight against terrorism.
In my opponent's second contention about the U.S. debt, there are several flaws. First, my opponent does not show the impacts of this point. Second, my opponent does not link this problem with aid to Pakistan. And most importantly, suspension means that we will continue aid in the near future. This means that even if we suspend aid to Pakistan, some time in the near future, we will continue aid to Pakistan. That eliminates any impacts of my opponent's second contention because we will continue aid in the future.
Now, I will go over my own case. My opponent's first contention and my first contention clash, however I have clearly won on this point. First of all, my opponent cites American words while I have cited Pakistani actions against terrorism. Second, my opponent does not show how decreasing our involvement in Pakistan will help us catch more terrorists, while the Central Asia-Caucasus Institute states that the War on terror must be increasingly focused on Pakistan. My opponent has not even touched my Contention 2 (subpoint A and B) and my Contention 3 (Subpoint A and B), so those point still pull through.
For these reasons, I strongly urge a negative ballot. Thank you!
I will defeat my opponents case and then reintroduce the stronger side of this debate being pro.
First let me point out that it doesnt matter who has the burden of proof in a debate. Each side still needs to prove there case. He uses Innocent until proven guilty. Well the defendant still needs to prove why there not guilty. So My terms still stand.
His terms fail because it contradicts him. He says he wins if he can prove one or more areas where assistance should be maintained or abolished. He needs to pick a side. either abolish or maintain. Thus my terms still stand.
My opponent states that aid will further u.s interests but fails to realize that pakistan has different interests contradicting U.s interests........Pakistans interest is promoting stability in Afghanistan; And supporting jihadis in order to appease political forces within pakistan.............the second undermines their own, and the United States purpose of providing assistance. This alone should be enough to suspend all assistance because it hinders our own operations...........http://www.cfr.org...
Maybe my opponent didn't read thourougly enough but I clearly have 4 strong contentions. But let me address his before I prove mines
My opponents first contention; Suspending aid would cripple the united states ability to pursue terrorists groups. Thats false. Suspension will actually increase the effectiveness of our anti terrorism operations. I've already proven in my case that The ISI(pakistan intelligence agency) tips of terrorists.(evident in the inability to find bin laden, and the 3-4 raids when the ISI tips of the terrorists.)Pakistan helps the very terrorists we pursue. So obviously, logically, There's no way that pakistan is helping the U.S fight terrorism effectively to the best of their ability. ...His statistics from the cffr is invalid because I have statistic from the people that prove other wise. He says security operations have been successful. really if security is so good what is this?
the number of deaths from terrorist violence
63% of pakistanis don't feel safe.
86% say their country is headed in the wrong direction
If security and cooperation is so good then why are deaths from terrorists increasing dramatically every 2 years? With U.S assistance?
"suspending aid will result in the expulsion of U.S intelligence officers."
Pakistan is already doesnt want the U.S to conduct operations........ 335 US personnel, CIA officers and contractors and special operations force personnel were being asked to leave Pakistan. Witch is 25-40 % of staff. they all want us to limit drone strikes witch is battling terrorism.........http://www.bbc.co.uk...
Since its already happening without suspension, logically means that it wont happen if we suspend.
My opponent states pakistan will remove troop if we suspend. Where's your evidence???????????
My opponents second contention; Suspending assistance to pakistan would hurt pakistani citizens and the United States foreign interests. I've already proven that pakistan isn't interested in the same strategic foreign goals as the U.S is. so this contention has absolutely no weight. About hurting the pakistani people even while were giving them aid here's their opinion:
As of 2011 before the capture of osama bin laden 75% of pakistan favored the U.S. After the capture 73 % favored the U.S according to a survey taken by......http://www.bbc.co.uk...
This obviously shows that even with assistance of all forms pakistan isn't appreciative. If they don't appreciate our help why should we continue to give it?
To defeat the rest of his case
just for the record here's why we need to suspend on humanitarian aid, and all economic aid. If we suspend assistance we can reform how we invest in pakistan. Only 2 % of aid has gone to education since 2001......http://www.americanprogress.org... ....obviously we need to reform how we invest into pakistans economy because its not working to the best of its potential. From 2001-2007 poverty levels have reduced by 10%........20 billion dollars spent and only a 10% improvement obviously is needed. America obviously needs to restrategize what were doing with the money. (missing money)(missing improvement).Also if we know that were missing billions of dollars because its not going into the places we want it to go to, hen how are the people going to get they money?....they cant because of corruption. America should not tolerate corruption of taxpayer money when we don't have money to give in the first place being trillions of dollars in debt.
Also here's some more evidence linking terrorists to pakistan and its intelligence agency.....
the fact that America is asking them to break ties with terrorist means there supporting terrorists
The fact that pakistan is refusing to fight these terrorists means there supporting them compiled with my other evidence......http://www.military.com...
here's more concrete evidence taken from the terrorists themselves.......http://www.bbc.co.uk...
His last subpoint saying that the U.S will lose geogrphical influence.
Ive already proven that 75% of pakistanis dont like us. So suspension wont change a thing. They wont be inulenced by other places any differently than hey do now.
some off my points
in my case I have proven that suspension is the best means of handling pakistan(so say)(giving money wont fix the problem) and that we cant just stand by and give them money while their supporting the very terrorists were trying to combat. I have also proven that there is millions of dollars of missing money supposedly given to pakistan. We also need to fix our own debt problems before we fund someone Else's. thus I fit the standards for winning this debate.
My opponent has not met the criteria what so ever. he hasn't proven why we need to fund them while they support terrorism,That were not missing money,and that were not in debt. lastly, He has not proven that pakistan is handling the money wisely,Therefore since he doesnt fit the criteria he should lose this debate.
we should suspend all assistance to pakistan for the following reasons.
1.contention 1:pakistan is supporting the very terrorists were trying to combat becoming a detriment to U.S foreign policy objectives.( why should we give money to a state who's policy objectives contradict our own? pakistan is hurting counter terrorism efforts by supporting terrorism.)
2.Contention 2: Missing money proves this investment is a failure. (106 million dollars is missing in assistance to pakistan. Where did it go?.It obviously didn't go to the people of witch it was supposed to be going to. We need to suspend to reform how we invest in pakistan so money wont be wasted.)
3.Contention 3 :America is in trillions of dollars of debt Where is this money to help pakistan coming from?(The debt as of Jan 1st, 2012 is 15,170,600,000,000. Thats more than our annual GDP. Giving money to be wasted or lost is not a ethical option.)
4.Contention 4 :suspending assistance will act like shock therapy.( suspension will prove that we wont stand for a contradictive alliance. We also need to take this time to reform how we spend money in pakistan so we wont be wasting taxpayer money. There needs to be more accountability.)
my opponent didn't even attack my case fully. silence equals concurrence. I've proven my case effectively and have justified suspension thus, I hope the voters vote for pro.
My opponent goes on to state that Pakistan has contrasting goals. This is clearly incorrect as I have shown earlier that Pakistan is helping the U.S. fight terrorists and, I think it's safe to assume that Pakistan wants to keep the humanitarian aid we give them.
My opponents try to rebut my first contention by saying that Pakistan tips off terrorists, and is not helping us. First of all, my opponent's evidence is insufficient, and only states that there is the POSSIBILITY that Pakistan tips off terrorists. We don't know if this is actually happening, but as I stated earlier, we do know that Pakistan is actively fighting terrorists and is risking Pakistani lives helping the U.S. counter extremism. My opponent also states that Pakistan is supporting terrorists because we had to find Osama Bin Laden, however, he is oversimplifying the entire problem of terrorism to just one person. Pakistani officals stated that they did not know that Osama Bin Laden was in Pakistan, and considering the fact that Pakistan is risking thousands of lives to supports U.S. interests, it is quite evident that Pakistan is helping the U.S.
My opponents cite statistics, such as "Pakistanis don't feel safe in Pakistan" to show that they have goals that are against the U.S., however, my opponent fails to actually link U.S. aid to Pakistani opinions of safety and, consequently, there are no impacts to this point.
I also state that suspending aid would result in the expulsion of U.S. intelligence officers, and my opponent does not actually address this point directly.
Also, my opponents response to the point that Pakistan will remove thousands of troops from the Afghan-Pakistani border was that I have no evidence. If you want evidence for any of my points, you can just ask in the comments section. Also, that point was cited from the BBC World News.
My opponent tries to respond to humanitarian aid by saying that it is ineffective because of corruption, however, we are still helping people. For example, the U.S. shipped thousands of tents to a Pakistani disaster site. Also, according to the Congressional Research Service, Pakistani nationals support the U.S. more now that we are giving humanitarian aid. Is the fact that we are helping people and saving lives not good enough to keep aid in Pakistan?
Also, I would like to note that my opponent does not even address my entire third contention (subpoints A and B), so that still pulls through.
My opponent states that Pakistan is directly linked with the Haqqani Terrorist network, however his evidence states that there MAY be a connection. We don't actually know if this is true.
My opponent tries to address geopolitical influence by saying that Pakistanis don't like us, however they like us more because of our humanitarian aid, and my opponent is not even addressing China and the passport point (subpoints A and B of contention 3).
Moving on to my opponent's argument:
In his contention one, he states that Pakistan is supporting terrorists. This is actually not true. Pakistan is actually risking more soldiers and has lost more soldiers than the U.S. against terrorism, as I stated earlier. If Pakistan supported terrorists, they would not be sending soldiers to fight terrorists. Also, if we suspend aid, Pakistan will pull these soldiers out, so it is the U.S. aid that is increasing Pakistani cooperation against terrorism.
In my opponent's contention two, he states that missing money proves that our investment is a failure. First of all, missing money does not prove that our investment is a failure. In fact, because of our aid, we are gaining Pakistani cooperation against terrorism, we are helping Pakistan through humanitarian aid, and we are gaining geopolitical influence.
In my opponent's third contention, he states that we are in debt, "Where Is this money coming from?" First of all, this contention is completely unrelated to this debate. As I stated earlier, suspension means that we will resume in the future. Also, the benefits we gain from U.S. aid outweigh the costs.
In my opponent's fourth contention, he states that suspending aid will act as shock therapy. It will definitely act as shock, in a bad way though. Because we suspended aid last time, this has resulted in low Pakistani support for the U.S. and Pakistan actually mover toward the Taliban, clearly against U.S. interests and counter-terrorism goals.
For these reasons, I strongly urge a negative ballot.
P.S. If anyone wants some of my evidence, I will be happy to share. Just message me or comment.
Thanks for a great debate!
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||5||0|
Reasons for voting decision: sources: Pro had them. I saw none from con. Also his refutations seemed to stick, and the evidence provided was more convincing. The overall case was interesting, I think this was tied. So it came down to rebuttals. Pro had better arguments as well as better articulated, longer, and well logical.
Vote Placed by Travniki 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||4|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro dropped many of Cons arguments, and Con really took it when he capitalized on Pros weak point that "Suspending Aid will be a shock therapy" Also Pro didnt meet his BOP to show that we need to suspend ALL aid to Pakistan